Mike Seaver Cheryl Schatz 10

1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak to sensible people, judge for yourselves what I say. (ESV)

Women then are responsible and have the freedom to judge for themselves what Paul says and teaches rather than having men tell them what they think he teaches. In other words, women do not have to follow the teachings of comp theology without checking for themselves what Paul says. But comps would tell us that women must learn from the men what Paul says because their theology teaches that only men may teach and women cannot judge prophecy.

I wonder if Mike would accept the Puritans definition of prophecy?

So, I am confused. Is a preacher/pastor a prophet? Or a teacher or both?

I am thinking along the lines of what is considered normal in the institutional church and how these functions are viewed today.

Are we seeing that the gifts given in scripture are usually tied up in one central person in the Body?

I do know that Mike’s church, SGM, calls their top leaders Apostles. I know CJ Mahaney is called an Apostle. So, I was wondering what Mike calls himself? A pastor, preacher or Apostle?

Lin,
You are asking lots of hard questions. There just can’t be a definitive answer to your questions without a rule book. That is, a rule book outside the Bible. This is what should raise the red flag that they have a wrong view of these passages. If you can’t figure out the parameters of sin from the Bible, who or what will be our authority to decree what is sin and what isn’t? And do we have a say too or does the charge of sin come from select men alone with biblical precedent?

“And this use of prophesy should be included in a Greek Lexicon definition and it is. Isaiah was preaching and teaching and had authoritative, but the “prophesy” referred to in Mark 7:6 is different than 1 Cor. 14’s use of the same word.”

There were female prophets in the OT? So what is Mike’s point here?

The other verses he cites are from contexts of gifts. So what? Women are given the gift of prophecy and teaching, or does Mike deny that? What’s his point then for citing the other verses? Those verses don’t say that women are not given the gifts of prophecy or teaching and they don’t say that women cannot use their gifts of prophecy and teaching for men. What’s his point then? There is somekind of distinction being made within those verses but the distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with prophecy not being a matter of teaching.

Confused

The person who heals, serves, prophecies, speaks in tounges, performs miracles, evangelizes, sheperds, helps and administrates does not teach, and neither does the apostle! No person who functions within their gift teaches except the Teacher or whoever Mike says.

more dumb questions:

We know that Phillips daughters were prophets, Deborah was a prophet as was Huldah.

Is Mike saying that women CAN be prophets but cannot JUDGE any prophecy…(If we can find a defintion every one agrees upon)?

But his definition of 1 Tim 2 means that women cannot ‘teach’ men. So how do prophets NOT teach something?

Well, I think I have mentioned this before in passing on Mike’s site as well as here. But repeating the truth never hurts. And so I will speak it out here a bit more fully. The rigid distinction so often made by complementarians between prophecy as the “forth-telling” or the proclamation of God’s word to the congregation, and the teaching and instruction of the congregation on the basis of God’s Word already given, is not to be found in the New Testament itself. If anything, they are presented as different forms of “speaking God’s word” that overlap and complement one another as far as regards the instruction, encouragement and exhortation of God’s people.

For example, Silas and Judas, who ministered as prophets in the Jerusalem church, after the adjournment of the Great Council in Acts 15, were sent along with Paul and Barnabas to confirm the Message of God already given concerning the Gentile-Jew controversy: “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you…Therefore we are send Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing” (Acts 15:24-27, TNIV). And then Luke records that after the letter was received and read by the church at Antioch, “Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers,” which preaching and teaching confirmed the written message Antioch had received from Jerusalem.

But let me say a little more about Judas the prophet, which I think confirms the point I am making. Earle E. Ellis, in his book, PROPHECY AND HERMENEUTIC IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY, very convincingly argues that not only was the prophet Judas of Acts 15 the author of the Letter of Jude, but that the Letter of Jude is the primary example of what he calls “prophetic exegesis” of the OT, designed to show the typological and prophetic parallels between the dangers of the false prophets to Israel and the false prophets rising up in the Church, the intent being to warn, instruct and exhort believers to contend for the Gospel faith. Now if Judas, as a prophet, gave this kind of preaching in Jerusalem, why could not have Philip’s daughter’s, who prophesied among the people of the church in Caesarea, at times engaged in similar exegesis of the OT? No distinction is made between this man and Philip’s daughters, as far as the nature and function of their prophetic ministry is concerned.

Therefore, those who make this rigid distinction, and then deny women from either teaching or preaching God’s Word to the congregation, do not have NT support for their position. And so the burden of proof rests with them.

It simply defies logic that a person could prophesy/be a prophet without teaching something.

Frank, thanks for the info on Jude.

But his wife critiques his sermons?

“It simply defies logic that a person could prophesy/be a prophet without teaching something.”

Maybe it doesn’t count as prophesy if it’s not done behind the pulpit an so in that way prophesy isn’t considered formal teaching therefore not teaching at all.

“Teaching” doesn’t mean teaching.
Complementarianism means complementarianism with hierarchy.
Submission means subordination.
Pastor means ruler.
Equal but different means equal but subordinated but equal.
Church means a building with people gathered inside.
Male means boss.
To be created first means progeniture.
Chauvinism doesn’t mean chauvinism.
But Hierarchy always means hierarchy 🙂

pinklight,
It seems they have no idea how much they are bound by tradition and
must keep redefining what the Bible means so it keeps the social norms they prefer.

Trying to say that one could prophesy without ever teaching others ??? To far out for me

I have been reading an interesting book, TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH: THE CHURCH’S URGENT QUESTION, which challenges the centrality and authority of the “one man pulpit.” Throughout this book the author, David C. Norrington, demonstrates the following four points:

1. Today’s custom of making the sermon the “main attraction” of weekly gatherings has no clear NT support nor was it the norm for church gatherings of the first two centuries, which he amply verifies from both the NT and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

2. The regular weekly sermon did not become such a featured part of church life until about the third century–along with other non-biblical practices, such as the acquistion of elaborate buildings, and the adoption of hierarchical forms of leadership modeled on Greco-Roman institutions, resulting in the suppression and elimination of the “one another ministires” of 1 Cor. 12-14 by the mid-fourth century.

3. The NT paradigm was community oriented with a mutual effort to develop and exercise everyone’s gifts and skills–most of such group life taking place in house churches without the benefit, or distraction, of an ordained, professional clergy.

4. The traditional “sermon,” because it doesn’t allow interaction between the preacher and the congregation by means of questions and answers, is actually a poor teaching method and does little to foster spiritual growth among God’s people.

And he has some interesting things to say about mutual submission of the leaders to the congregation, as well as of the congregation to the leaders. I quote in part:

In some cases leaders were likely to defer to others:
1. Not all elders taught (1 Tim. 5:17). Where a plurality of elders existed, any non-teaching elder(s) present would submit to the authority of the teaching elder(s) in the area of teaching–or even to the authority of a teacher who was not an elder, if such existed.
2. Leaders would be required to acknowledge the gifts of others in their congregations and respond appropriately those gifts when exercised. For example, Earle E. Ellis suggests that “…the role of the prophet may overlap that of the elder as it does that of the apostle and the teacher, especially in certain teaching functions” (Cf. “The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts,” APOSTOLIC HISTORY AND THE GOSPEL, p. 66).
3. Leaders were required to defer to the authority of their wives on occasions (1 Cor. 7:4).
4. Elders might have to answer to criticisms brought by members of the congregation (1 Tim. 5:19).
It is thus clear that submission and obedience to leaders in the New Testament is not absolute (Cf. TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH, pp. 53-54).

For those who hold the centrality and authority of the “one man pulpit” for congregational worship and ministry, this a very challenging book indeed.

First of all, Mike has not shown anything that gives even the slightest clue to the separation of prophesy and preaching. Frankly, I wonder if the word “preaching” can even by found in the Bible. Is it unbiblical then?! No, I would propose that prophesy and preaching are one and the same, especially in the New Testament where God now speaks through the Holy Spirit to guide us, rather than coming down and directly speaking to us as he did to Deborah and Huldah in the Old Testament.

Now, in further breaking this down, is it possible for prophesy to ever not teach? I suppose one might say that the specific prophesies of God to specific people in the Bible, such as Huldah’s direct prophesy to King Josiah, is not necessarily “teaching” in it’s strictest sense of imparting knowledge to the student. But, then again, Huldah was imparting the knowledge of God’s words to Josiah and Deborah to Barak and the rest of the Israelite nation. But is it possible for one to proclaim God’s words without “teaching” per se? Yes, in a way, it is, though that line is severely blurred and barely exists. It is hard to say that the prophesy is not a teaching itself. However, once proven to line up with Scripture, the prophesy gains an authority that demands respect as it has proven to be the word of God.

A teacher, however, is not necessarily proclaiming the word of God. He might be merely teaching Bible history to children or teaching morals. The fact that Paul made separate distinctions between a prophet, who is surely proclaiming God’s word and whose gift is the greatest in Paul’s words, and a teacher proves that the teachers were probably teaching to others what had been taught to them through the prophets. It is unlikely that their teachings had as much authority as a proven genuine prophecy.

To put this in more plain terms, the prophet would be like Einstein finding a new law of physics or something. The teacher would be like school teachers who take that and impart that knowledge to the masses.

Which one would a complementarian covet more?
Making a distinction between teacher and prophet then claiming that teaching was greater than prophesy despite Paul’s words to the contrary.

Preaching, however, is the same as prophesy, period.

1 Corinthians 12:27-30
“27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

Take note that, previously in the chapter, there was not a spiritual gift that seemed to be exclusive to apostles. Apostles also have the gift of prophesy. Take note that apostles are ones who spread the word of God to those who have never heard it. So that means that the prophesies of apostles were often held in higher regard by the new believers than the prophesies of these new prophets in the church.

So, therefore, Paul tells the reader to aspire to have the greater gift (or, depending on translations, he is saying that the Corinthians are too busy aspiring to obtain the greater gifts) which is the gifts given to apostles and prophets who are above teachers, though all gifts are essential and irreplaceable pieces of the body of Christ.

However, Mike makes it seem like just because technical teaching is separate from prophesy that it is somehow more authoritative. It is not. Since complementarians like titles and authority so much, it should tickle their funny bone to know that the only thing they can wrench from Scripture is that women are allowed to have the “more authoritative” gift of prophesy but not the “less authoritative” gift of teaching.

In all this furor over which gift the women should or shouldn’t suppress, let us not forget the teaching that followed the exhortation of gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:31b, 13:1-13:
“And now I will show you the most excellent way. 1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Love is greatest of all and endures forever.

Frank

Sounds like a book I’d like. “To preach or not to preach.”

Todays sunday morning meeting is a far cry from
what we see in scripture.

The whole “Religious System” is a far cry from
what we see in scripture.

I’d like to question the use of the word “leader.”

The word “leader”seems like a “high place.” Yes?
Jesus always took and recommended the “low place.”
Jesus humbled Himself, made himself of no reputation
and took on the form of a servant. Php 2:7

Jesus in Mat 23:10 told His disciples “NOT” to call
themselves master/“leaders”
for you have one master/”leader” the Christ.

King James Version –
Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ.

The Interlinear Bible –
Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English –
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.

Today’s English Version –
nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.

The Amplified-
you must not be called masters ( leaders )
for you have one master ( leader ) the Christ.

Jesus told His disciples not to be called “leaders” and none did.

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

His disciples all called themselves “servants,”
none called themselves “leaders.” None? None.
None called themselves “servant-leader.” None.

If someone calls themself a “leader”
or thinks they are a “leader;”

Are they a “disciple of Christ?”

Just wondering. Be blessed.

@ Amos

I love those words of yours. You are exactly right.
The church has been corrupted with leadership roles. Prophesy was essential to understanding God’s word; but it, in no way, made apostles or prophets leaders in the Church. The new believers needed guidance for a season. Then the apostle was to move on to spread the word to other unbelievers or stand aside and let body of Christ stand on its own.

Of course, with these new leadership roles, men feared being led by the women of the church. Thus, the new interpretations and deviation from Scripture. (Not to mention, this is God’s prediction of man ruling over women working throughout things here that I have my doubts will ever fully or measurably disappear until Christ returns.)
If we returned to full equality in the church, would these men be as antsy?

CLC

“The church has been corrupted with leadership roles.”

Much agreement with this statement. Let me add;

“The Church of God” The ekklesia of God,
Jesus is the head of the body (the ekklesia, the called out one’s) the church,
is doing just fine. NOT corrupted.

But, the church of man, the religious system, the institutional church,
I believe has been totally corrupted for 1700 years.

When leaders teach that women cannot judge prophesy (or teachings), the end result is that women must believe what only men tell them. They cannot or are forbidden from thinking for themselves in the area of divine truths. This is the danger of such teachings. IMO it is an effort to dumb down their women which is unhealthy for the women, and lift up their men which leads to arrogance and is unhealthy for the men.

As a new Christian I lived through the Shepherding Movement and experienced this teaching personally. It is insidious. It shifts women’s focus from God to males.

I am sorry if my language in this statement is offensive, but I lived this. And do not recommend any women believe such a teaching.

TL

I’m sorry that you had to go thru that.

Have Mercy Lord… And heal TL’s broken heart. Amen.”

I experienced a measure of the shepherding movement myself.

You can not find words that are offensive enough for me.

How about;
Hateful, detestable, horrible, horrid, unpleasant, awful,
nasty, disagreeable, despicable, objectionable, insufferable,
revolting, loathsome, abhorrent, abominable, execrable,
odious, disgusting, distasteful, obnoxious, offensive,
vile, heinous, ghastly, beastly, godawful.

Leaders = lording it over = abuse = always

It is still going on today in “the church of man” in many places.
Most in “the institutional church” like Pipers,
don’t even know they are being abused.

“Help them Lord, open their eyes to the truth of your word.”

When you tell them, they defend and protect the abuser. What???

Praise God you are delivered from that mess.

Jesus is the only shepherd who totally loves and cares for his sheep.

Thank you Jesus.

@ Amos

Yes, nicely said that it is mostly the religious system that has been corrupted with religious leaders; but…in a sense…., even portions (maybe even the majority?) of God’s Church has been corrupted in that they believe in these men akin to a belief in an infallible God (Note, for example, Nick on that other blog who refused to see the fallacies in Piper’s teaching to abused wives simply because he sees all his other teachings as wonderful) . They look up to these men as speaking the Words of God, failing to follow the prescription to test every prophesy. They adhere to the notion of hierarchy. They invoke these men and their endorsements as if they were God. (“Happy” Promise Keeper)
They look to men rather than the Holy Spirit to guide them in their view of the Scriptures and the application of God’s instructions on our lives because they have gotten the impression all their lives that other “qualified” people know what the Bible says better than the Bible. (That or they don’t want to have to bother reading the Scriptures. Depends on the person.)

Like it or not, good portions of God’s bride have been wooed away by “servant leaders”. Institutionalized religion cannot stand without, at least, a portion of the backs of God’s bride to use as a foundation.
Unless….that is….one wishes to characterize those who partake in hierarchy as not being part of God’s Church….. I’m not willing to make that leap.

But, yes, much of God’s Church is going the way of Israel and following idols.

Again, wonderfully wise words.

@ TL

Yes, that is EXACTLY the point of abuse! You have very succinctly expressed the exact abuse that is going on with women; but, in a less noted way, the abuse is also going on with the laity of the church, men and women alike. They are under the impression that “pastors”, deacons, leaders, men like Piper and Grudem know how to translate the Bible better than the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

I didn’t know what the Shepherding Movement was; but I looked it up; and, yes, that is exactly it. That is exactly what is happening in average churches, but to a lesser degree.

Of course, with women, this is what has been pushed for centuries. Like you nicely took note of, it produces women who are easily led around by a nose ring because they are only able to obtain their knowledge of Scripture from their men. So whatever the man says is there, is there.
Of course, the pastors want these men to only teach their women what they want to be taught. So they set up the hierarchy to ensure that the sheep remain in THEIR pen, rather than under the watchful eye of the Good Shepherd. They proclaim that they can keep the sheep safe from wolves if only the sheep remain in the little defined walls of the pen. This sets the eyes of the sheep on fellow sheep (sometimes wolves) for protection, rather than the One who can truly protect us. Problem is these men are sinners, sheep, just like the rest of us (Hopefully, the ones you happen to be following aren’t wolves…, and you wake up one day in a cult.). Their structures won’t protect us. And to say that we need extra protection besides that which is afforded to us through our Good Shepherd is to say that Christ’s protection is somehow deficient.

The same can be said for the so-called leadership of the husband to his wife. Are we to assume that Christ is not enough? Can a mere man, a sinner who is unable to save himself, afford us women any spiritual protection? I would say no!

By the way, I suggest you post your thoughts on Mike’s blog.

“Unless….that is….one wishes to characterize those who partake in hierarchy as not being part of God’s Church….. I’m not willing to make that leap.”

Neither am I. There are plenty of times that Christians don’t act very godly, holy, loving, etc. But we came to Christ messed up and we’ll still be messed up until we allow Him to cleanse and redirect us. For some people in some areas, it will take most of their lives. And some people in some areas will never allow God in. But they are still Christians until they somehow deny Christ.

“The same can be said for the so-called leadership of the husband to his wife. Are we to assume that Christ is not enough? Can a mere man, a sinner who is unable to save himself, afford us women any spiritual protection? I would say no!”

Excellent point, CLC! I won’t forget it!

I hope that in my last comment, I did not give anyone the impression that either Dr. Norrington or myself deny the NT teaches that there are leaders in the church, both men and women, designated as “elders” and whose primary functions are described as “overseers” (episkopoi) and “servants, ministers” (diakanoi). For we do not disagree; but on this, the nature, function and limitations of leadership, we do agree as follows:

Whatever local leaders were required to do, Christians were to obey them and submit to them (1 Cor. 16:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:5; cf. Phil. 2:29; 1 Thess. 5:12f). Taken out of context, this element of New Testament teaching might seem to imply an authoritarian leadership upon which the church was highly dependent. This interpretation, however, is counterbalanced by other evidence:
First, Jesus insisted that leaders should be servants (Mt. 20:25-28) and this point is taken up by Peter in the very passage where he urges subjection to elders (1 Pet. 5:1-5).
Second, throughout the epistles of Paul, we find an emphasis on mutual submission–and there is little evidence to suggest that leaders are exempted from this requirement.
Third, following Old Testament and later Jewish teaching, Christians were instructed to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-17. The verb used for submission here is hupotasso, the same as in 1 Cor. 16:16 and 1 Pet. 5:5 where submission to Christian leaders is in mind). The precise limits to this obedience are not worked out but the early Christians knew that, in the event of a conflict between their duty to God and to the state, they should obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19f, 5:29; Heb. 11:23; cf. Mt. 22:21). Here too they followed Old Testament precedent and later Jewish practice (Ex. 1:17; Dan 3:13-18, 6:10; 1 Macc. 2:22)….(TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH, p. 53)

And according to Ephesian 4:7-13, where Paul speaks of leaders or elders, not in terms of office or authority, but in terms of their Spirit-gifting and the purpose of that gifting, which is to bring believers to maturity, help them discover their own gifting and calling, and then train and equip them to be competent ministers of Christ–he calls such leaders as gifts to the Church, given by Christ himself for that purpose. On this, Norrington says,

Whatever we are to understand by local leadership in the New Testament, there is at least one and probably two gifts of leaders hip (e.g., Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28) and it is, I suggest, as leaders exercised these gifts that Christians were to obey and submit to those leaders. This should not have resulted in an unhealthy form of dependence because little or no competition was involved. Even when Christians had the same gifts as their leaders, such trainee leaders could then be prepared for posts of leadership in their own or another house church (TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH, p.55)

So leaders who fulfill the gifting and calling the Lord Jesus gave them, which by word and example, is to prepare the rest of the congregation to be mature, wise, competent ministers of Christ–such leaders are to be respected and honored. But those who teach and practice heresy, who deny the gifting and calling of other Christians, and refuse to train and equip them to be competent ministers of Christ–to such leaders, our response must be, “No! In this case, you are out of line with Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Here we must obey God and stand firm against you and your false teaching and practice.” This is, I believe, the stance to take when the nature and function of Christian leadership is being perverted for worldly ends.

CLC

You wrote;
“Of course, the pastors want these men to only teach
their women what they want to be taught.
So they set up the hierarchy to ensure that the sheep
remain in THEIR pen,
rather than under the watchful eye of the Good Shepherd.
They proclaim that they can keep the sheep safe from wolves
if only the sheep remain in the little defined walls of the pen.”

Yes CLC, very well said, this has been my experience also.

“hierarchy” even means “sacred ruler.”
from the Greek hierarkh?s, hieros ‘sacred’ + arkh?s ‘ruler.’
Designed by man, I believe to dominate and control others.

Strange, can’t find hierachy in the NT. Hmmm?
No clergy – laity? No leader- follower?
Jesus said,”My Sheep” hear “My Voice” and follow me.
Just brethren? Submitting one to another?
All one in Christ?

In the Bible, How many people… have the title pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are… referred to as pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are… ordained as a pastor?
In the Bible, How many congregations are… led by a pastor?

Hmmm? Seems the “so called pastors” have a problem. yes?

Jesus is the head of the body (the ekklesia, the called out one’s) the church?

Religion is the system – Not the relationship.

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice.
If Not Now, When?

Be blessed and be a blessing.

Frank

You wrote;
“I hope that in my last comment, I did not give anyone the impression that either Dr. Norrington or myself deny the NT teaches that there are leaders in the church, both men and women, designated as “elders” and whose primary functions are described as “overseers” (episkopoi) and “servants, ministers” (diakanoi).”

“Whatever local leaders were required to do,
Christians were to obey them and submit to them.”

I could be wrong.
You seem to be saying, in the church, “elders” are “leaders”
and we are to obey them. Yes?

Then you say;
We don’t have to obey elders/leaders who “practice heresy”
or if they’re “out of line with the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.”

“such leaders are to be respected and honored. But those who teach and practice heresy, who deny the gifting and calling of other Christians, and refuse to train and equip them to be competent ministers of Christ–to such leaders, our response must be, “No! In this case, you are out of line with Scripture and the Holy Spirit.”

Might sound strange;
I’ve never met an “elder/leader” who fulfilled the qualifications of an elder.
Never found one “elder/leader” who made it past the first one, “blameless.”

Bishops “must be” blameless…

Blameless… How important is this word?

Webster’s – Without fault; innocent; guiltless; not meriting censure.

Synonyms – faultless, guiltless, innocent, irreproachable, spotless, unblemished.

Computer – that cannot be reprehended,
(cannot be, rebukable, reprovable, cannot find fault)
not open to censure, irreproachable.

Strongs #423 – anepileptos – inculpable, blameless, unrebukeable.

How many, who honestly examine themselves,
seriously considering these qualifications,
can see themselves as “blameless,” without fault
and thus qualify to be an overseer, elder?

And if you can see yourself as “blameless;”
Is that pride? And no longer without fault?

This is only one of many qualifications.

The Bible talks about bishops and elders.
And qualifications for bishops and elders.
Can you have one without the other?

So, according to what you said, there is a troubling question.

If someone who says, or thinks, they are an “elder/leader”
and does not fulfill the qualifications of an “elder/leader;”

Wouldn’t that be someone who is “practicing heresy?”
And wouldn’t that be someone who is “out of line with scripture?”

And someone we can say “no” to? Ignore as irelevant?

Leaders = lording it over = abuse = always

Peace and grace.

Amos, I am not quite sure what your objection to my view on elders as leaders is about. In my own study of the NT texts having to do with leaders in the church, not only titles but also their qualifications and functions, I came to the conclusion that “elder” designates the maturity and wisdom of the male and female leaders of the house churches; that “overseer” (episkopos) and “minister” (diakonos) describe the primary ways in which they function as leaders. Do you hold a different view regarding the relationship between bishops, elders, and deacons, and that is why you object?

Now I know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians regard episkopoi (“bishops, overseers”) and presbyteroi (“presbyters, elders”) as different offices, with bishops being over elders, and then “deacons” (diakonoi) being under the elders. But I believe that this hierarchical view is a corrupted third century church tradition, not the teaching of the NT itself. And regarding Paul’s commands to both Titus and Timothy, the problems in Ephesus and Crete were due in large part to “fallen elders,” both men and women, who had to be replaced by other qualified elders who could be trusted to uphold Apostolic patterns of sound doctrine and godly living.

Therefore, as regards replacing defective leadership with qualified leadership, in the main, I agree with Gordon Fee: “Paul delegates Timothy, and apparently later Tychicus, to straighten out the mess in Ephesus created by false teachers, who in my view were elders who had gone astray. Timothy is not the ‘pastor’; he is there in Paul’s place, exercising Paul’s authority. But he is to replace the fallen elders with new ones who will care for the church and teach when Timothy is gone (1 Tim. 5:17-22; 2 Tim. 2:2; 4:9). The elders in the local churches seem to have been composed of both episkopoi (overseers) and diakonoi (deacons), who probably had different tasks; but from a distance there is little certainty as to what they were (except that episkopoi were to be ‘capable teachers,’ 1 Tim. 3:2” (“Laos and Leadership under the New Covenant,” LISTENING TO THE SPIRIT IN THE TEXT, p.141) However, on the basis of Phil. 1:1b, which is an anartharous construct, which means the verse can be rendered, “To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus, together with the overseers who minister among you…,” I would not make such a rigid distinction between overseers and elders as might be suggested by Fee’s comment. But I’m not going to be dogmatic about it.

Are we to obey elders, if they are both qualified and if they fulfill the role the Lord Jesus gave them in the church? Well, what does the Scripture say? Here are the pertinent texts:
1. “Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in highest regard in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
2. “You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it” (1 Cor. 16:15-16).
3. “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you” (Heb. 13:17).
4. “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings who will also share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be;…not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders” (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

Now, if elders meet the qualifications that Paul and Peter lay down for those who would so serve in the church; are gifted and called by the Spirit, and recognized by the other elders and the congregation to be both fit and truly called to this ministry; and if they fulfill their role by bringing younger Christians to maturity, acknowledge their gifting and calling, and then train them to be competent ministers of Christ; should we hold them in the highest regard, yield to their authority as sheperds, and follow their lead as they follow Christ? Well, Amos, on the basis of all this, what would you say our proper response to the elders should be?

Frank,

I have not deeply delved into all it is that you have written. So forgive me for not addressing it all; but one verse that you cite jumps out at me.

4. “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings who will also share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be;…not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders” (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

Contrast those verses with this one:

“14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ”
(John 10:14-16)

That was taken from this set of verses:

“2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.””
(John 10:2-18)

According to Christ, there is but one shepherd. One. If there is anyone else, he is a hired hand who cares nothing for the sheep, though, God would not leave us alone in the hands of a hired hand leaving us vulnerable to wolves.
Christ mentions other sheep that are not of His pen but that he will bring them in also.

So what do you do with these two verses? My opinion is that Christ is giving us the overall picture. ALL of us are sheep. If you are not a sheep, then Christ has not laid down His life for you.

So what do you do with these two verses?

Well, there is this admonishment to Peter:
“15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
(John 21:15-19)

Do we think that Peter is not part of Christ’s flock? I don’t really think so. If he wasn’t part of Christ’s flock, he wouldn’t be saved because Christ only laid down His life for his flock.
But…, then again, Christ isn’t saying, necessarily, that Peter isn’t a sheep. He simply commanded Peter to taker care of and feed the sheep.

So what do we do with the fact that Christ Himself says that there is only ONE Shepherd and that He is that Shepherd? …….I can’t say for certain. I’ll have to sleep on this one for a while.

CLC,
Good thoughts! This is something I posted over on Mike Seaver’s blog Part 6 of the debate – just throwing it out here for you to mull over and see what thoughts it may spark.

*Mike,
After reading the last few lines of your rejoinder, I’m feeling baffled also. How can we both read 1 Peter 5 and “see” it so differently? I don’t see the word “authority” in any of those verses. I see in verse 2 the word translated as “oversight” has the meanings of “to care for, to look after” but no mention of “authority” in the definition. I do see the shepherds being told “And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock” a) Don’t try to be lords to those you care for. b) Do be examples. It is a warning for elders in the faith to be responsible. What could be more plain?
Not one time is being in authority mentioned.
But “all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Not one time is being in authority mentioned here either. So, I am left to wonder – where are the verses setting up an “authority” structure? *

Everyone is pointing out the real problem we see in the interpretations put forth by the masculinists: Authority.

I can model the love of Christ, His truth, etc and not be in authority over my peers. I am one of the sheep.

What could be done with someone exercising ‘authority’ in the church? We get a glimpse of it with John writing about Diotrephes.

I also take a hint from the passages on dealing with church discipline in 1 Corin 5 and Matt 18 (and others) when the ‘Body’ is told to deal with these situations as a whole. The instructions were not given to elders to carry out. (Although some who are teaching church discipline are ADDING to Matt 18 a step that is not in the Word. I heard this taught by someone very wellknown and I was aghast that this man would ADD to scripture what was not there)

It is one reason we see these groups use Hebrews 13:17 so much. A badly translated passage that they think supports their being in ‘authority’ over others in the Body.

But the body only has servants

Frank

Thanks for taking the time for such a complete rendition of leader/elders.

“Well, Amos, on the basis of all this,
what would you say our proper response to the elders should be?”

Here’s “my” responce “now” to those calling themselves elders today.

Qualifications. Qualifications. Qualifications. Qualifications.
Let me check you out and see if you can live up to the “Qualifications?”
First, are you “Blameless?’ Without fault? Innocent? Unrebukable?
( Frank, please reread comment #29 for blameless.)

Frank, you mention qualifications. I mentioned qualifications.
How important are the qualifications for elder/bishop/leader?

I think you would agree, we are to “know those who labor among us,”
and we are to “test the spirits,” and be “Bereans” and check things out.
The Bible warns us about; false apostles, many false prophets,
false teachers, false Christs, (false anoninted one’s) etc. etc.

I personally have never met anyone who “meets the qualifications”
for an elder/pastor/leader. Have you? I would like to meet them.

If they don’t meet the “qualifications”
then they are a “false” something. Yes?

They “all” are deceiving the people when they assume a place. a “Title”
of “elder/leader” and do not meet the qualifications. Yes?

“Deceiving the people” I think would equate with “practicing heresy.” Yes?

Please reread comments #17 and #20

If “Blameless” doesn’t satisfy some who say we”must” have elders,
then here are a few more qualifications for elder.

The Bible says a bishop, elder, “Must be”…
That’s the same “must be” as; must be born again…

1-blameless — unrebukeable, without fault.
2-husband of one wife — married, male.
3-rules well his own house — have a family, children.
4-not greedy of filthy lucre — Not greedy for money.
5-vigilant — no excessive wine, calm in spirit.
6-sober — of a sound mind, self controlled.
7-of good behavior — modest, unassuming, reserved.
8-no striker — not quarrelsome, contentious.
9-not a brawler — abstaining from fighting.
10-not self willed — not self pleasing, not arrogant.
11-not soon angry — not prone to anger.
12-temperate — having power over, restraining.
13-holy — undefiled by sin, free from wickedness.
14-just — righteous, virtuous, innocent, faultless.

“having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly”

15-faithful — believing, one who trusts in God’s promises.
16-not accused of riot — Strongs – asotia — unsavedness.
17-an abandoned dissolute life, lost to principle.
18-unruly — disobedient.

That’s a very long and a very tough list. Yes?

If someone thinks they qualify?
Is that pride? and thus not without fault?

The Bible talks about elders and qualifications for elders.
Can you have one with out the other?

Frank, do you know anyone who qualifies for “elder/leader?”

Be blessed in your search for truth… Jesus.

Lin

“But the body only has servants”

Amen… Only servants.
All His disciples called themselves servants.
None called themselves “leaders.”
None called themselves “servant-leader.”

Kay

“So, I am left to wonder –
where are the verses setting up an “authority” structure?”

Oh! there are none… made up by those wanting to lord it over others.
Those wanting power, profit, prestige, recognition, and reputation.

All the things Jesus said we should turn away from.

CLC

“So what do we do with the fact that Christ Himself says
that there is only ONE Shepherd and that He is that Shepherd?”

Amen… The Lord is my shepherd….

“2-husband of one wife — married, male.”

The Grk. means ‘one woman man’. It is an idiom meaning faithful. It was discovered by a French writer. The idiom is an old one, and found on the tombs of both men and women.

There is a word play with the beginning statement “Faithful is the Word”. To take away from the idiom, changes the word play and emphasis. Paul is emphasizing the characteristics of a faithful type of person.

We still use that idiom today in English when we say that soandso is a ‘one woman kind of guy’ or ‘one man type of woman’. I suspect that it is used all over the world.

TL

Thanks for the info.

Even with the revision;
Do you know anyone who can qualify to be an “elder/leader/pastor?”

peace

CLC, I think I understand your concern that no Christian leader presume to take over the unique relationship that the Lord Jesus Christ has with his flock, the Church. However, I don’t think what Jesus said and what Peter said are necessarily contradictory. In fact, I believe that what Peter teaches actually flows out the commission that Jesus gave him in John 21:15-18, to which you yourself have already refered. In both texts, Jesus is regarded as the Chief Shepherd, Peter and the other elders he came to represent, as under shepherds. And the under shepherds are gifted and called by the Chief Shepherd, to represent him and carry out the commission he gave them all, again represented by Peter, “Feed my lambs and take care of my sheep,” on which Peter elaborates in 1 Peter 5:1-5. P. H. Davis explains it this way:

Rather than dominating his house church, then, the elder is to lead by example: “being examples to the flock”. This concept of leadership is common in the NT. Jesus often presented himself as an example (Matt. 10:24-25; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 6:40; John 13:16; 15:20). Paul could write, “Walk according to the example you had in us” (Phi. 3:17) and “We gave an example to you so that you might imitate us” (2 Thess. 3:9), or even “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1; cf. Acts 20:35). Other leaders were also expected to be examples (1 Thess. 1:6-7; 1 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 2:7; Jas. 3:1-2). In fact, one could well argue that, following the pattern of the ancient world and especially of Judaism, teaching and leading was for the NT basically a matter of example rather than of lecture or command. Being an example fits well with the image of “flock,” for the ancient shepherd did not drive his sheep, but walked in front of them and called them to follow (cf. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, pp.180f).

And as regards the parable in John 10:1-6, I don’t know how Cheryl or some others would interpret it, I briefly give you my take on it. I believe you would agree that in this parable. the Shepherd is the Lord Jesus; the flock of sheep is, of course, us Christians; and the thieves and robbers, according to the context, would refer to the Jewish leaders, who opposed Christ gathering his flock while trying to establish a flock of their own. But who or what does the gatekeeper and the sheep pen represent? Regarding this imagery, Merill C. Tenney writes,

The imagery of the first two paragraphs is based on the concept of the “sheep pen.” It was usually a rough stone or mud-brick structure, only partially roofed, if covered at all, or very often a cave in the hills. It had only one opening through which thge sheep could pass when they came in for the night. The pen served for the protection of the sheep against thieves and wild beasts. The thief, who would not have any right of access by the gate, used other means of entrance. He would not follow the lawful method of approach. “Thief” and “robber” are different in meaning. “Thief” (kleptes) implies subtelty and trickery; “robber” (lestes) connotes violence and plundering…The purpose of both was exploitation; neither was concerned for the welfare of the sheep (cf. “The Gospel of John,” THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY, Zondervan, 1981, p. 107).

I believe the gatekeeper and the sheep pen represent the house church and the elder(s). Consider: The sheep are kept in a safe place where they are cared for and protected until their true Shepherd comes for them; the gatekeeper both knows the Sheperd and his sheep, and has a meaningful relationship with them both, but he never seeks to replace the Shepherd; and not only does he care for and feed the sheep, but does all he can to protect the sheep from thieves and robbers who would lure then away from the Shepherd and do them irreparable harm. So, on this basis, I believe there is perfect harmony between Jesus and Peter regarding how we are to understand the proper relationship between Christians, elders as gatekeepers, and Jesus as the True or Chief Shepherd. I don’t know if this resolves the problem for you, CLC, but that is how I would explain and reconcile these passages. I hope you find this helpful.

A. Amos Love,

People become Christians when we realize our need of a relationship with God. We know we are sinners. The problems come in when some think they no longer sin and need to be accountable to no one.

Amos, I have reviewed both my comments and yours. And since this is Cheryl’s website, and not mine, I don’t want to take up unnecessary space discussing what I now perceive to be a difference of opinion regarding false leadership vs. true leadership. So I’m going to finish my part of this discussion with some short observations.
1. It may be that in the material I quoted from Dr. Norrington, I failed to make explicit my own understanding that both elders and congregational members are mutually accountable to each other, with the elders primarily being responsible to guide, disciple and equip the members, and the members being responsible to receive and yield to this guidance, discipleship and equipping as long as they’r ministers in training.
2. Paul specifically sent Timothy and Titus to replace fallen elders with elders who met the requirements we find in 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-2:5. However, Amos, I get the impression from what you say, that unless they’re absolutely perfect, no one should be a leader nor are we to yield to their guidance or counsel in any way. Does that include Paul himself, who indicates in Phil. 3:12-14 that he is not absolutely perfect and needs to make greater progress himself? I may be wrong, but it seems you are promoting perfectionism, which is erroneous teaching, in my view. So is that what you are teaching?

I have not had time yet to read through all the comments here as I just now finished the final graphics for the cover of the DVD editing project that has been on my plate for the last couple of months.

However I would like to jump in and give my opinion on leadership. If this is a repeat of what anyone else says, please pardon me for not having read all the comments yet. The key verse is 1 Timothy 3:1

1 Tim 3:1 (ESV) The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

1 Tim 3:1 (LITV) Faithful is the Word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work.

The place of leadership is a “good work” and a “noble task”. Anyone may desire this and work hard to be in a place of service to the body.

While there are many who have taken leadership and distorted into a thing of abuse, the bible shows that true, godly leadership is a thing to be desired and it is an excellent work and goal. We need to lift up those who attain to the place of a godly example and who work hard to protect the flock from the wolves. With these true leaders we will know them by their fruits. Their fruits will never be lordship over others but true servanthood towards the body and looking out for the body of Christ’s interests before their own. To these kinds of leaders we give our love and respect as we desire to live godly lives in Christ.

The ungodly work of the false shepherds is not our example. The godly work of those who follow the true Shepherd and our Lord is a fitting example to submit to learn from learn.

I hope this helps!
Cheryl

Help!!!!

Can anyone help me.

Does anyone know, or think they know, or even disagree with,
what I’ve been trying to say about elders/leaders/pastors?

I believe it is a very important part of what is being said here about abuse and those here who have suffered abuse. All? I have.

There is no excuse for abuse.
Physical, domestic, emotional, or spiritual abuse.

It stinketh!!!

Please help, I ain’t been talken good american.

Hi A. Amos Love,
I have some company coming over today and then again tomorrow, but I will try to go through the comments carefully in the next few days (God-willing) and see if I can unravel what you are saying and what you are not saying. 🙂

I am off now to get some cleaning done.

Cheryl

Hmmm? Cleaning?

That’s one way to get next to Godliness!! 😉

Cheryl

Got some friends in Cnd “A”

They sound just like my friends in Brooklyn NY.

In Cananda they say;”It’s a good day! “A”

In Brooklyn they say; “A” Have a good day” 🙂

“Help!!!!

Can anyone help me.

Does anyone know, or think they know, or even disagree with,
what I’ve been trying to say about elders/leaders/pastors?

I believe it is a very important part of what is being said here about abuse and those here who have suffered abuse. All? I have.

There is no excuse for abuse.
Physical, domestic, emotional, or spiritual abuse.

It stinketh!!!

Please help, I ain’t been talken good american.”

Amos, I get you. It has been my contention all along that if folks understand that the NT teaches ‘servant’ instead of ‘leader/authority’ most of these problems would go away.

Having what some think is ‘authority’ or leadership over others is a huge sin trap. We see it played out every day in churches all over the place. The problem, as I see it, is that there are so few real ‘elders’ that no one knows what a real one would be like. So, they think the ones with the titles are elders/pastors, etc. I would think we would need to go back to Matthew 5 to see what a real elder would look like. What I call the salt elements.

@ Kay, Lin

I have been meditating on this issue; and I agree with you guys. I think that the elders were more mentor than anything else. The Bible makes no mention of authority that is wielded over the rest of the congregation.

Partly to Frank: I believe that the reference of the elders being shepherds does not mean that they are really our shepherd like Jesus was. I believe that it was a similar metaphor used for a different purpose as is done many a time such as here:

” 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. ” (Isaiah 53:6-7)

In this metaphor, we are referred to as sheep; but, then, Christ is also referred to as a lamb. So does this mean that Christ is also a sheep like the rest of us? No, the metaphors are merely looking at the different aspects of the nature of sheep and applying those specific characteristics to who they apply to, rather than applying ALL the characteristics of sheep to the people the metaphor is referencing.
For example, we sinners have the tendency to go astray as sheep do. That characteristic of sheep applies to us. So that characteristic of sheep is applied to us to help us understand better.
However, the picture of the lamb being led to the slaughter gives us understanding to what happened to Christ. So that particular characteristic of sheep at the time of being the preferred sacrifice is used to reference Christ. That does not mean that Christ has the characteristic of going astray, nor does it mean that we sinners are taking the sin of others on ourselves as the picture of the slaughtered lamb portrays. The individual characteristics are what’s being used, not the lamb themselves.

Therefore, the characteristics of the shepherds leading the sheep, sacrificing His life for the sheep, bringing back stray sheep, calling the sheep to follow him like little children, being the gate, etc. are the ones applied to Christ.
The characteristics of the shepherd taking care of the sheep are the ones applied to elders. They do not have all those leadership qualities of Christ.

Frank said: “I believe the gatekeeper and the sheep pen represent the house church and the elder(s).”

The elders are not the gatekeeper. If the elders were the gatekeeper, they wouldn’t be covered by Christ’s sacrifice. There is no mention of the gatekeeper being even slightly part of the group being saved.
He was only mentioned one time:

“2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice.”

After that, when people didn’t understand, Christ said that He was the gate for the sheep.

“6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. ”

And it was only when Christ said that He was the gate that He mentioned the thieves and robbers. So that analogy doesn’t really make sense to me. Not to mention the fact that Christ said that he sacrificed Himself for His sheep, NOT for the gatekeeper. There is barely any mention of the gatekeeper.

This is why I am holding to the notion that the usage of shepherd was different for the two instances of when they were used as metaphors.
Christ used the metaphor to help people understand His relationship with His church. Paul used an aspect of shepherds to admonish the elders to care for the new Christians who would be all over the board unless they got some guidance and mentorship, just like sheep would be without some guidance from shepherds.
Like Kay and Lin, I don’t see authority being commanded. In fact, I believe Kay effectively showed that that authority is being discouraged.

They are not like Christ. Just because a pastor/elder says that God says something, it doesn’t mean that it’s true. You have to do what Paul said, which is test everything by measuring it against Scripture. They also aren’t like Christ in that they did not die for our sins, nor does believing in them save you from your sins.

There’s a reason why pure heirarchal structures in government lead to tyranny and were desperately avoided in forming our Constitution. The same thing occurs with a heirarchal church. The heirarchal structure keeps everyone in line and accountable to one or a handful of men, sinners, not God. So if they decide to interpret Scripture to benefit themselves and you have teachings that say going against your authority is stepping out of God’s will or even cases where these few men become revered as gods, what do you think will happen?
Frankly, it’s inevitable. Whenever sinners get placed on pedestals above everyone else, their heads get puffed up; and corruption begins. This is what happens with sinners. It’s not exclusive to men. Nor is it exclusive to complementarians. Anyone who gets reverence like that will become puffed up.
We all need the body of Christ to collectively keep each other accountable. And when everyone is equal under God’s authority, there is none of this situation where the sin of one man gets immediately transferred down the line to all the underlings.

I think the gatekeeper/watchman referenced in the beginning of Jesus’s metaphor would more likely be an angel than anything else.

I hope I am making sense.

@Amos
I understand where you are coming from. It’s an interesting interpretation of the requirement of “blameless”. I think it does bear looking into. Though, I THINK there were cases of overseers in the Bible. I’m blanking out on any names, though…. But, if we can find a name, someone met the requirements.

CLC,

You brought out some wonderful fine points for this discussion. One of the main things I’ve learned from Cheryl & her commentors here is to read what the Scriptures really say and not what we’ve always had superimposed on them to say.

CLC

Very well explained. I’m enjoying your writing and thought process.

Good stuff!

“heirarchal structures = tyranny”

“Frankly, it’s inevitable. Whenever sinners get placed on pedestals above everyone else, their heads get puffed up; and corruption begins. This is what happens with sinners. It’s not exclusive to men. Nor is it exclusive to complementarians. Anyone who gets reverence like that will become puffed up.”

Amen – Lot’s of puffy heads. 😉

A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.
Pr 29:5

Lin

“Having what some think is ‘authority’ or leadership over others is
a huge sin trap.”

Yes, “a hugh sin trap”

I have seen the dangers of “Titles,” of “Pastors,” and of “leaders.”
Spiritual abuse for both the “leader” and those “being led” by man.
My conclusion is the word and position of “leader” is very, very dangerous for both.

If “pastors” and “leaders” (as we see them today) are of God?
He’s not taking very good care of His shepherds; Is He? 😉
Hmmm? Wonder why?

This is info from a website helping “burned out Pastors.”

PastorCare offers support and encouragement for pastors and their families.
At PastorCare we care about YOU and we want to help.

Hey guys,

I am SO excited that there is so much interaction between posters on my blog even without my attendance here. My time is so limited right now and I am putting my thoughts as I am able onto the debate on the Australian blog conference on women in ministry. My folks are here visiting right now and after they leave I will be back to my own blog. Thanks for your patience with me as I work hard to balance my time and my loyalties.

CLC, I pretty much agree with what you say in your comment regarding the limited application of the “shepherd” metaphor to elders (47). They are indeed to be mature mentors and guides. And as for my interpretation of “the gatekeeper and sheep-pen,” I hadn’t thought of the “atonement” problem for the elders; thanks for pointing that out to me.

I did a search on Google on women in ministry & this site came up so I am 6 mos. late but would like to respond for what it is worth…

First, I see many are hung up in this conversation over syntax & culture. A lot of you are REALLY stymied by the word “leader”, “pastor”, or any other word we use today for someone in “charger”. I love what Jesus tells us in Matt. 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

If you are going to make a “disciple” OR you are going to “teach”, you MUST have some form of authority. Responsibility WITHOUT authority is an incredible injustice! But Jesus Himself gave US that authority to lead others, no matter how you slice it. However you “title” that authority is a mute point. You can split hairs here.

I am recognized as a “pastor” in my church, my denomination, & the state in which I live, yet I try to lead by example & love those in my congregation. I am against “shepherding” in the sense of ordering people around telling them what to do, however, I WILL protect those in my church to the point of costing my life, therefore a shepherd. (And please don’t respond by saying I don’t understand the magnitude of what I just said. I have lived in Siberia for 10 years with the FSB on one side & the mafia on the other persecuting us.)

But being “pastor” of a church ALSO comes with an unspoken responsibility. I am “legally” responsible as the CEO of a corporation. For a church to have “non-profit” status, it must be incorporated. IF we are going to split hairs as to say that we are doing church the wrong way because of syntax, then WHO will step up to bare responsibility? Who will MAKE disciples? Don’t be fooled! If you “lead” someone to Christ, you ARE a “LEADER”!

Second, I have been “called” by God to serve. I LOVE the fact that the Matt. 28 passage is NON-gender specific. Jesus called ALL of us to make disciples. The inflection in that passage by-the-way is an “imperative”. There are 3 imperatives in fact.

1. Make disciples. 2. Baptize. 3. Teach.

The imperative is NOT “go”. THAT is assumed & would equally be correct if it was translated, “While you are going”.

The point here is that we ALL are going to be at a “spiritual” level along this journey & we ALL have to submit to SOME form of authority. Though some of your comments are technically correct, the word usage authority, leader, pastor, etc. ARE implied throughout scripture. Scripture IS “trans-cultural” & you must agree that our culture IS different than the first century church.

To those of you who are purist, there are too many examples of women in leadership throughout scripture to say that women don’t have a place in leadership. God appointed Deborah to be judge, prophetess, leader over generals, & yet be a WIFE.

Some of the earlier comments I would like to address quickly that made me chuckle…

In comment #15, David C. Norrington is quoted as to the correctness of HOW we should have church & that many of our practices are “non-biblical”; driving a car is non-biblical, playing baseball is non-biblical, & so on. I bring up MY silliness because there are SOME things that are WRONG & SOME things that are DIFFERENT. We need to be careful to NOT judge things that are DIFFERENT as being WRONG.

GREAT blog Cheryl! My wife is a wonderful woman of God who can out teach me yet I’m not too bad of a preacher. We compliment each other VERY well & my church has already said that if I die, she can move in. :o) I just hope it won’t be too soon. lol

PK,

Thanks for your comments and welcome to my blog! I do believe that God has given us all authority to use our gifts and the body of Christ needs to submit to the gifts that God gives in order for them to grow and be protected from spiritual danger. The problem is that many are not like you and do not see authority as a responsibility to protect and serve the body but rather as a way to demand respect and demand their own way by requiring people to follow them by the means of their authority instead of by the reason of their example as one who fulfills a calling to feed the sheep. When the “shepherd” becomes the focus instead of the service to the sheep, “authority” and “leadership” can become so distorted that it becomes a way to abuse the sheep instead of feed and protect them. Then the term “leader” becomes an abusive term and we all want to stay away from that.

However if a true “leader” has only the welfare of the sheep in mind and a deep love love for the body of Christ, that kind of leadership will naturally be welcomed because the sheep will hear by the example the good Shepherd’s voice.

PK that was a wonderful testimony that you gave about your wife’s abilities. Praise the Lord for a man who is not threatened by a godly woman who operates in her giftedness!